I think all the inexpensive (non L) primes are in need of upgrading. Adding better focus and IS on the longer ones. Most are over 20 years old. Update the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm. Especially with all the Rebels being sold, there needs to be a decent set of affordable primes, especially on the wider end.

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? It really looks good on paper, but some reviews indicate it has focus problems on Canon bodies.

Bob Howland

Others have mentioned a 200-400 f/4 and a 200-400 f/2.8-4. Either of those would be entirely acceptable, but a 200-500 f/2.8-4 or even a 250-500 f/2.8-4 would be even better. (I would use any of those lenses almost exclusively on a monopod.) In systems where the camera tells the lens what aperture to use, the variable aperture feature of the lens becomes almost invisible in use.

I already own a 100-400 and would also like it to be upgraded to get rid of the push-pull zoom feature. A 28-300 that is optically as good as the current model but designed (and priced) like the new Nikon would also be appreciated.

besides the 135 2 L IS I am also waiting for the 200 2.8 L IS. The new 70-200 2.8 is II is very close to the 200 2.8 but also very expensive for me. I would buy the 200 2.8 if it would have IS. I do weddings and I can not walk around with a monopod

Edwin Herdman

Personally, this year I was interested in the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II. I was also considering getting the classic (but old, may be on its last legs for resolution) 400mm f/5.6 non-IS, along with perhaps another $1000 lens (can't remember what at this point). Right now I'm looking at the new 70-300mm L, which does have a "modest" (Canon's phrase) maximum aperture (especially at 300mm) but looks to have incredible IQ at all points of the range. If it's around $1500 that also helps the sticker shock substantially (enough that I could replace my T1i with the extra $1000 saved), and the extra 100mm over the 70-200 is very important to me. I'd gladly pay an extra $1000 for a better maximum aperture but you can't have everything.

So for a while I think that will more or less be the last word in 70-300mm on the Canon platform, unless they release one with a better maximum aperture (I'd gladly pay an extra $1000 for an improvement in that though).

I don't care so much about the 50mm f/1.2; the original seems not to be as sharp at normal apertures as the f/1.4, which in turn is claimed not to be as sharp as the compact macro (Ken Rockwell sez...take it with your shovels of salt, I guess, but I assume he's right; MTF curves on Canon's website seem to confirm that at f/8 the 1.4 is sharper towards the edge of the frame, though the 1.2 seems to have a slight boost in the middle). The f/1.2 is expensive. I'd consider getting one all the same, but I shoot with the 50mm at "reasonable" apertures more often so sharpness at those apertures is very important.

Plus the f/1.2 was released in 2006. Those pro lenses don't seem to be upgraded as quickly as the cheapies, probably because Canon wouldn't remake them for cost savings as you can see happened to the original 50mm 1.8 (which looks like the f/1.4 build-wise) to the II. How realistic is it to get an upgrade already?

It's the f/1.4 that is crying for an upgrade, and which I voted for before when this was on the front page of CR.

DO lenses...I wonder if this wasn't a failed experiment on Canon's part. The 70-300mm has weird defocus characteristics (doughnut boke). Again, these are also pretty new lenses, but apparently the 70-300mm is not so well loved so Canon probably isn't rushing out with another. These may eventually catch on but they ought to solve the defocus characteristics issue first. It's a shame because that lens reportedly doesn't change focal length when zooming - no focus breathing - which would be perfect for video.

DO lenses...I wonder if this wasn't a failed experiment on Canon's part. The 70-300mm has weird defocus characteristics (doughnut boke). Again, these are also pretty new lenses, but apparently the 70-300mm is not so well loved so Canon probably isn't rushing out with another. These may eventually catch on but they ought to solve the defocus characteristics issue first. It's a shame because that lens reportedly doesn't change focal length when zooming - no focus breathing - which would be perfect for video.

I believe that you can make parfocal lenses without going to DO optics ... and its still cheaper than DO, too. don't forget the lack of contrast in DO lenses. I know they're smaller and whatnot, but to me the price doesn't justify the gain against what's lost ... prefer that canon spends its energy developing non-DO glass

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

Justin

I want a 24-120 f/4 IS like Nikon just released. A 14-24 2.8. And a 24-70 IS obviously. I don't see Canon making the 14-24 though because it will mess with 24 1.4 and 14 2.8 and 16-35. That's too much cannibalization is what I'm sure their marketers are saying.

I think all the inexpensive (non L) primes are in need of upgrading. Adding better focus and IS on the longer ones. Most are over 20 years old. Update the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm. Especially with all the Rebels being sold, there needs to be a decent set of affordable primes, especially on the wider end.

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? It really looks good on paper, but some reviews indicate it has focus problems on Canon bodies.

I think that Canon's strategy is to sell cheap zooms to rebel owner...

Bingo. It seems pretty likely that Canon has done the market research and found that Rebel buyers want zoom lenses. The more zoom the better. The 50/1.8 is popular because it's cheap. I'm sure the 50/1.8 outsells the 35/2 by a wide margin, even though arguably the 35/2 is more appropriate as a 'normal' prime for a 1.6x crop body. But Joe Consumer would take a swig of his can of Bud and say, "I'm not going to shell out $300 for a lens that doesn't even zoom!" If they update the non-L primes, they'll be more expensive than their current versions, and I suspect not be very popular at that price point, at least for the typical consumer. People who hang out here are much more likely to appreciate the benefits of a prime lens. I'd bet that at this point, the EF-S 18-200mm outsells all the primes in that whole range, L and non-L combined. If Canon were to develop a 27x superzoom, say an EF-S 15-400mm, I bet it would be a consumer hit! They could even market around the horrible barrel distortion by claiming, "The wide end gives you that unique and creative fisheye look, at a fraction of the cost of our new 8-15mm fisheye zoom..."

Hey! My most used lens is the 18-200. It's light and easy to port around...of course I also own the 50 1.2L and 17-55 2.8 for serious occasions. But the 18-200 is extremely useful when I only take 1 lens with me. There is a market for people like my wife who want the performance of an SLR camera in a lighter compact form (rebel) with as much zoom as possible to capture those fleeting moments in life. She just has to follow the rule of averages and take 10 pictures to get one great one.

nothing wrong with using an 18-200 superzoom; I'm sure every manufacturer's 18-200 sells extremely well because it's a swiss army knife of a lens.

my wife resolutely shoots with the 18-200 since she hates the additional weight and fuss that comes with switching lenses. and that's a valid point; she is able to move faster than me and often manages to grab shots I simply have to spectate because I don't have the right lens on at the right moment. L glass is certainly not a cure-all, and I know plenty of people who are actually glad not to be carrying around red-striped equipment due to the weight savings (and cost savings!).

oh yeah, her 18-200 comes image stabilized, which neither my 16-35 nor 24-70 are ... so we actually end up pretty even in terms of keeper rates despite her slower glass

Logged

Flake

18 - 200mm is EF-s only and quality isn't up there with the best by a long way.

However a lens I'd like to see is born from using a 24 - 105mm IS L on a crop frame. Sometimes you just don't need a wide angle, but do need the long end. The 70 - 200mm is just too long, so something perhaps 35 - 40mm at the wide end and maybe 150 - 175mm at the long end.

I doubt we'll ever see this so it'll have to be the crop body or even two bodies with different lenses.